Re: [Harp-L] criticism

["Bob Laughlin" <rlaughlin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to quote a small portion of what is below:

"> Funny, here I was thinking discussion forums were places to discuss
> things, and a harmonica discussion group here to discuss harmonica
> related things.  Such as videos on YouTube and what our reactions to
> them are."

My reaction to this is that yes, this is a discussion group, and I find your
comments/criticisms/observations of the Kiley Barter youtube clips entirely
valid, and in part, I agree with your assessments, though I think another
mentioned the fact that this "Kiley Barter" guy, if en-couraged rather than
dis-couraged, could go on to greater and greater levels of playing. Now I
also believe that the matters of EN-couragement and DIS-couragement are all
in tone, demeanor, and skillful writing ability in our observations of
another's talent. While I agree that anyone putting clips out for all to see
is therefore potentially subject to scrutiny from the general public, I also
feel that one who truly cares about another's future capacities in any
artistic field may perhaps exercise due caution in choosing words that may
weigh more on the side of en-couragement over dis-couragement. Anyone can
offer an opinion. Few are skillful enough to inspire. It may be our
"God-given right" (?) to offer an observation, hiding behind the fact that
we are simply being "objective", "honest", "frank", etc.,,but it may show a
lack of character if all we have to offer are negatives, with no balance.

That having been said,,

Elizabeth also has offered her opinion, her observations, her feelings, her
views, concerning the criticisms made of the Kiley Barter videos. Her
opinions, feelings, observations, and yes, criticisms are as valid as any,
if the rule stands that "anything made public is subject to scrutiny".
Therefore, Elizabeth's observations are as valid as the original criticisms,
"discussion group" or not. There should be no complaints forthcoming from
either side in the discussion. As has been said before,,"It's all good".

I'm not a fan of "busy harmonica" myself, but it's nothing to go to court
over. Live and let live I say.

BL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Ross" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: [Harp-L] criticism


> All quotes are from Elizabeth
>
>
> "For what it's worth...when someone posts a YouTube video here...and
> then
> others join in to make comments (especially negative ones) about and
> or directly
> TO the person playing IN those videos...it's completely  illogical  and
> serves no real purpose if your intent is to "teach" the  player just
> what he is
> doing 'wrong' (in your professional estimation, that  is)...since he
> isn't
> reading your comments."
>
>
> We have no way of knowing whether or not the person is on harp-l, so
> who's to say.  In any event, it may be a simple misreading of the
> original post and the person thought that the poster was the player
> in question, and responded thusly.  In any event, writing to a third-
> person who may or may not be reading has a long history and can be a
> very useful form of criticism in many ways, whether the person to
> whom the letter is directed reads it or not.
>
>
> "The player in question isn't a member of Harp-L as far as anyone can
> determine...he put his videos  on YouTube, not harp-l, and there is
> a  place ON
> YouTube right there under each video for comment.   While I  still
> don't understand
> (and no one so far has satisfactorily been able to  explain to me) the
> seeming necessity in the harmonica community of 'some'  harmonica
> players (out of
> all other musicians) feeling the need to criticize  other harmonica
> players,
> dissecting their videos negatively seems  especially egregious (in my
> humble
> opinion).  Did this young guy ask for  your criticisms here?"
>
>
> Who cares if he asked for criticism.  He put videos out there, or a
> record, or whatever.  If someone makes something available to the
> larger public, they should expect criticism.  And secondly, criticism
> is not simply a negative thing, there is positive and negative
> criticism (actually, to criticize is merely to comment on something,
> even "that was awesome" or "that sucked" is a form of criticism, not
> the most in-depth and interesting criticism, but criticism
> nonetheless).  If he didn't want people to notice what he played, he
> shouldn't have posted to YouTube, and if he can't deal with people
> not fawning over his playing, then again he shouldn't have posted to
> YouTube.  I find it ironic that while we live in an increasingly
> exhibitionist culture at the same time the idea of being able to say
> anything other than the most fawning of admiration for this
> exhibition is treated as somehow being cruel.
>
> So, whether he asked for criticism or not is unimportant--he made
> himself a public figure, and when one does that one should expect
> criticism.  If people don't want to be criticized in any form (and
> with the potential for things other than glowing praise, you know,
> with the potential for people to be honest in their reactions) then
> don't put yourself out there.
>
>
> "As a matter of fact, one can not only post comments on YouTube, but
> even
> post VIDEO comments ..i.e. your own videos...perhaps to counteract
> his...show
> him just how it's done ..."
>
>
> But, this was brought to the list's attention, so why not comment
> here?  I don't want to get into a two-word, limited amount of writing
> allowed discussion on YouTube, so would rather comment on things in a
> forum which has the ability for more intelligent discourse.  As for
> video, well, I don't feel a need to expose myself to the world
> through the camera on my computer.  Funny that, but I seem to be one
> of the few people alive today who doesn't want their every move taped
> for all to see.
>
>
> " (somewhat akin to: putting your money where your
> mouth is?)  ;)  How about it?  All those who make a negative
> comment...put your
> OWN video up as proof whereof you speak? "
>
>
> No, no a thousand times no.  This is one of the most horrid ideas
> which comes up again and again when the issue of criticism is brought
> up.  It is usually brought up by artists after they've gotten a
> negative review, but also by the fans of artists and the like.  Guess
> what, it is illogical (unlike your use of the term above).  Being a
> good critic and being a good artist are completely and totally
> unrelated.  They are different skill sets.  Indeed, most great
> artists I've met are horrible critics (of others, usually they can
> criticize their own work fairly well, even being overly harsh often
> enough).  Someone doesn't have to be able to hum a melody in order to
> be a good critic of opera, they just need to have an ear for those
> who can, a knowledge of the field in question and the willingness to
> be honest when they criticize.  Again, it's an unrelated skill set to
> being able to be great in the field in question.
>
>
> "I would most  definitely be
> interested in seeing those!  I'm sure I'd learn an awful lot  from
> the comparisons of
> "right way vs. wrong way", since I'm a  newbie diatonic player and
> need to know
> these important  distinctions. "
>
>
> Maybe instead of challenging people you would do better to read and
> understand what they write and when they do give examples of such see
> if you hear the same.  Thus, I would argue that in this case Kiley
> Barter's example of how to "improve" the song by "Gobsmack"(sp) is a
> perfect of example of how not to improve a song, but rather how to
> play hell-bent without any relationship to what the song is trying to
> say.  It's just masturbating notes out without a real point to them.
> The original short harmonica introduction works much better in that
> it sets things up with a distinct feel and then let's the song take
> over rather than dominates the song for the sake of the soloist.  If
> you want to explore how to play harmonica as a central piece of a
> song but without dominating it and killing the musical value of the
> song, check out Jelly Roll Johnson's CD.  It's country, not rock, but
> the ideas of how to play at the highest level without just playing
> for the sake of playing notes is exemplified perfectly here.  For a
> rock example, I would suggest that Popper himself rarely plays over a
> song in the way Barter is showing.
>
>
> "Posting your dissection of his playing here strikes me as a  bit
> unfair,
> since it smacks somewhat of gossiping behind  someone's back...while
> the gossipee
> isn't aware he/she is being talked about so  negatively.  "
>
>
> Again, if you don't want to be talked about, on any forum, don't post
> a video to an open-access source.  It really is that simple.
>
>
> "Whereas putting your
> comments right there on his site will at  the very least allow him a
> counter
> response and serve to carry the  courage of your convictions, n'est-
> ce-pas?"
>
>
> No.  I don't care if he reads this or not.  I'm not writing for him,
> I'm writing for the members of this list and to discuss things here.
> Criticism isn't about whether someone can "defend" themselves, it's
> about being honest in what the critic writes.  If someone doesn't
> want to be exposed to criticism, whether on their own website or
> elsewhere, then they shouldn't put something out there to be
> criticized.  An exhibitionist can't complain that the people watching
> them are commenting on what they see.
>
>
> "P.S.  His specifically described "jazz" version of Stairway to
> Heaven (on
> diatonic, no less)..seemed quite different and unusual enough to give  a
> listen..and actually triggered an interest in me to try it on
> Chromatic...but  in no
> way made me feel the song should be "left alone".   Why?  Who decides
> when and
> for how long a song should or should  not be played?  NOW we have
> "Rock song
> police"? Geez."
>
>
> The song is not a favorite of mine--indeed, I always thought it was a
> hackneyed cheese-ball of a song.  Emotive without emotion.  That
> said, his version reminded me more of Bill Murray's send-up of bad
> lounge-jazz acts.  It really was rather funny, and not in a good
> way.  I tend to think the more you take a very easily recognized pop
> melody like that and jazzify it the more likely you're going to get
> that bad-lounge feel than anything else in the first place.  It just
> strikes the muzak chords pretty strongly, especially when the
> original is so overblown to begin with.  And I'm not in the least bit
> sorry if that's not the nicest thing to say, because it is honest and
> I'm not being meanspirited while doing it--I'm neither saying
> anything personal about him nor even saying he should stop posting
> these things or stop playing what he wants to play.  Just giving my
> reaction to it.
>
> Funny, here I was thinking discussion forums were places to discuss
> things, and a harmonica discussion group here to discuss harmonica
> related things.  Such as videos on YouTube and what our reactions to
> them are.
>
>
>
>   ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
> ()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
> `----'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l